JUDGMENT petitioner has called into question notice for reassessment issued for assessment year 1998-99 by Assessing Officer, second respondent, on March 29, 2005. petitioner has also called into question order passed by Assessing Officer on June 10, 2014, disposing of objections to reopening of assessment. petitioner filed its return of income for assessment year 1998-99 on November 30, 1998. petitioner was assessed on March 22, 2000, under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by Assessing Officer. petitioner received notice dated March 29, 2005, under section 148. petitioner filed writ proceedings before this court challenging reassessment notice which petition was finally disposed of on April 23, 2014, by remanding proceedings back to Assessing Officer to dispose of objections of petitioner to reopening of assessment. Assessing Officer disposed of objections, rejecting them, by order dated June 10, 2014. submission which has been urged on behalf of petitioner is that in present case, assessment was sought to be reopened beyond period of four years of end of relevant assessment year and since original order of assessment was made under section 143(3), no notice could have been issued without sanction of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. It has been urged that as matter of fact, no sanction had been issued. While disposing of objections of petitioner, Assessing Officer dealt with objection to effect that no sanction was obtained of Commissioner under section 151 in following observations: "... In certain cases Assessing Officer has to be of particular rank and satisfaction or approval of higher authority is required. It needs to be emphasised that as per Act satisfaction required before issuance of notice for reassessment/assessment of Assessing Officer and not of any higher authority whose approval may be required. Such approval is internal administrative process for better regulation of machinery of tax collection. manner in which assessee has set out objection. This means that assessee can conceal income give inaccurate particulars but not proceeded against if some approval or time limit is not obtained or has gone by. In any case their objection will be again examined during assessment proceedings if required by hon'ble appellate authority. This objection is accordingly not acceptable." Subsequently, petitioner filed supplementary affidavit disclosing information received on June 12, 2014, from Assessing Officer, Act. Writ Tax No. 492 of 2006. Income-tax Officer-6(2), Kanpur. In response to query under Right to Information Act, 2005, as to whether permission was obtained from Commissioner/Chief Commissioner in compliance with provisions of section 151 before notice under section 148 dated March 29, 2005, had been issued for assessment year 1998-99, answer was in negative. In order to enable Revenue to clarify matter, by order dated 8 September 2014, learned standing counsel was directed to take instructions and file counter-affidavit. In counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of Revenue, following statement has been made: "... assessee filed its return of income on November 30, 1998, in office of Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kanpur, who was under administrative control of Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Kanpur. Thereafter, Income-tax Officer-2(1) completed assessment under section 143(3), After restructuring of Department, jurisdiction over corporate cases was transferred to Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Kanpur Charge. perusal of proforma submitted by then Assessing Officer for obtaining approval for issue of notice shows that then Assessing Officer was not aware about fact that said case had already been completed under section 143(3) otherwise he would have sought approval of Commissioner of Income-tax, as required for purpose well within stipulated limitation of six years." Section 151(1) provides as follows: "151.(1) In case where assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by Assessing Officer, who is below rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless Joint Commissioner is satisfied on reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is fit case for issue of such notice: Provided that, after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on reasons recorded by Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is fit case for issue of such notice." Sub-section (1) of section 151 provides, inter alia, that where assessment has been made under section 143(3), notice under section 148 cannot be issued by Assessing Officer, who is below rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless Joint Commissioner is satisfied on reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that there is fit case for issuance of notice. proviso to sub-section (1), however, requires satisfaction of Chief Commissioner/ Commissioner after expiry of period of four years from end of relevant assessment year, failing which, no notice can be issued. In present case, admittedly original assessment was under section 143(3). notice under section 148 was sought to be issued more than four years after end of relevant assessment year. assessment year is assessment year 1998-99. Notice under section 148 was issued on March 29, 2005. In circumstance, clearly proviso to sub-section (1) of section 151 was attracted. Admittedly, as counter-affidavit which has been filed by Revenue indicates, no sanction or permission of Commissioner was obtained. In this view of matter, entire exercise of reopening of assessment under section 148 fails to meet basic jurisdictional requirement under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 151 since under proviso no notice can be issued except on satisfaction of Commissioner or, as case may be, Chief Commissioner and admittedly there was no such satisfaction in present case. reassessment notice dated March 29, 2005, would have to be quashed and set aside. reassessment notice dated March 29, 2005, is, accordingly, quashed and set aside having been issued without satisfaction of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as required by proviso to sub-section (1) of section 151. writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. *** Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. Union of India